The Supreme Court of India has acquitted a clerk and a peon associated with the Behari Gram Panchayat in Gujarat's Anand district, ending a nearly 30-year-long legal battle rooted in a 1996 bribery charge involving just Rs 20. A division bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar overturned previous convictions by the Trial Court and the Gujarat High Court, emphasizing that the mere recovery of money cannot establish an offense of bribery unless an explicit demand for illegal gratification is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The 1996 Incident and ACB Trap Operation
The origin of the case dates back to February 1996 when a student approached the Behari Gram Panchayat office to obtain an income certificate necessary for securing educational fee concessions. According to the prosecution, the Panchayat clerk demanded a total sum of Rs 120 to issue the required certificate. Out of this amount, Rs 100 was allegedly meant for the clerk and Rs 20 for the office peon. Instead of paying the money, the student lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). The bureau subsequently laid a trap and provided the student with marked currency notes totaling Rs 120 to execute the operation.
Discrepancies in the Raid and Recovery Process
After receiving the income certificate, the student handed over a marked Rs 20 note to the peon. The ACB raid team immediately intervened and recovered the exact Rs 20 note from the peon's possession. However, the remaining Rs 100 allegedly designated for the clerk was never found or recovered from him. Examining these details, the Supreme Court pointed out critical loopholes in the prosecution's narrative. The ACB had specifically instructed the complainant to deliver the entire Rs 120 if a bribe was demanded. Despite the clerk sitting right beside the peon, the student gave only Rs 20 to the peon, leaving the prosecution unable to explain why the clerk was not handed the remaining sum.
Contradictions in Witness Testimony and Defense Argument
During cross-examination in court, significant contradictions emerged in the student's testimony. The complainant admitted that the peon had never made any direct demand for a bribe. Furthermore, the Rs 20 was handed over after the income certificate had already been issued and placed in the student's possession. In his defense, the peon maintained that the student gave him Rs 20 as festive goodwill because Eid fell on the following day. The Supreme Court observed that this explanation was far more plausible and trustworthy than the prosecution's version. Additionally, records showed that in another proceeding, the student had asserted that the accused initially demanded Rs 200 before settling on Rs 120, yet he completely omitted this detail during his deposition before the trial court.
Invalid Sanction to Prosecute and Section 20 Ruling
Beyond factual inconsistencies, the Supreme Court highlighted a major procedural defect regarding the legal authorization to initiate trial. The sanction to prosecute the clerk was deemed invalid because it had been granted by an authority lacking the competent legal jurisdiction to issue such an order. Crucially, the bench addressed the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court ruled that when the foundational element of a prior bribe demand remains unproven, a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the recovery of Rs 20 from the peon. Based on these findings, the apex court set aside all lower court judgments and fully exonerated both public servants.
